The only nonprofit newsroom in California dedicated exclusively to covering statewide issues that impact all Californians is CalMatters. Welcome. For a Saturday morning summary of the most recent Golden State news and analysis, sign up for WeeklyMatters.
This article is featured on California Voices, a discussion platform that aims to increase public awareness of the state and highlight Californians who are directly affected by policies or their lack. Find out more here.
When it came to requiring public officials to conduct their business—really, our business—in public, California was once a national leader.
Following the passage of the Ralph M. Brown Act of 1953, which severely restricted local governments’ ability to hold secret meetings, the California Legislature passed a number of so-called “sunshine bills.” The Public Records Act provided access to all but a few documents kept by state and municipal agencies, while the Bagley-Keene Act expanded the Brown Act’s open meeting provisions to state agencies.
The Legislature, however, mainly excluded itself even if it was prepared to let others enjoy the sunshine. Caucuses may therefore convene in private to determine the outcome of legislation, effectively drafting the content of public sessions prior to voting. Legislative appropriations committees had the authority and did choose in secret which measures would go to the floor of both houses, then they simply declared the winners and losers without providing any context.
under the past, having two political parties and a sizable corps of reporters helped to keep parliamentary secrecy under control. Reporters may use sources to eavesdrop on covert negotiations, and party leaders could divulge what their opponents were planning.
But secrecy grew stronger as one party took control of California and the Capitol press corps decreased as a result of media industry upheavals.
The present attempt by Democratic lawmakers and Governor Gavin Newsom to create new maps for the state’s 53 congressional districts in an attempt to gain enough additional seats to counteract the Republican gerrymandering of Texas congressional districts serves as an example. In stark contrast to the months-long public discussions that the state’s redistricting committee held four years ago to produce the existing maps, California’s new maps are being produced in private.
It appears that the new maps will be briefly unveiled prior to a vote by the Legislature to include them on the ballot for a special election in November. They will not be subject to change before to adoption.
The current redistricting process is consistent with the Capitol’s preference to conduct public affairs in secret.
Another example is an unwritten rule that forbids lawmakers from genuinely addressing amendments to their bills during committee meetings, thereby turning such hearings into pointless charades, as CalMatters uncovered last year.
READ NEXT
Democracy in the dark: How California lawmakers are trying to shield themselves from public view
The enormous project to construct a new annex to the Capitol itself is still another. Despite the state’s ongoing, multibillion-dollar financial deficits, the Legislature has exempted the project from the California Environmental Quality Act and has refused to disclose information about what is being built or its estimated enormous costs. Participants in the study have also been obliged to sign non-disclosure agreements promising to keep information private.
Assembly Bill 1392, a pending bill, would shield public officials’ and political candidates’ residential addresses from disclosure. Despite being hailed as a precaution, it would prevent reporters from ascertaining if officials truly reside in the districts they represent—a problem that has often come up.
Additionally, lawmakers seek to reduce the transparency of local government operations.
Assembly Bill 699, a bill currently pending in the Capitol, is the most recent attempt to permit supporters of local bond measures to place the tax implications in voter pamphlets rather as ballot summaries, thereby making them less noticeable.
Closing the circle that started when the Brown Act was passed in 1953, Senate Bill 707 would allow some municipal authorities to hold meetings online instead of in person, which would make it simpler to silence public opposition.
President Donald Trump is frequently accused of harming democracy by California’s powerful Democrats, but their increasing penchant for secrecy is just as reprehensible.
CalMatters has further information.
Text
Receive breaking news on your mobile device.
Get it here
Use our app to stay up to date.
Register
Get free updates delivered straight to your inbox.
Nonpartisan, independent California news for all
CalMatters is your impartial, nonprofit news source.
Our goal remains crucial, and our journalists are here to empower you.
-
We are independent and nonpartisan.
Our trustworthy journalism is free from partisan politics, free from corporate influence and actually free for all Californians. -
We are focused on California issues.
From the environment to homelessness, economy and more, we publish the unfettered truth to keep you informed. -
We hold people in power accountable.
We probe and reveal the actions and inactions of powerful people and institutions, and the consequences that follow.
However, without the help of readers like you, we are unable to continue.
Give what you can now, please. Every gift makes a difference.
California’s dysfunction could squander Lithium Valley’s half-trillion-dollar potential